Talk:Peak Performance (episode)
Hathaway hacking I dont think that the Information of the Hathaway "hacking" the ferengis computers systems is accurate. I think they just warped out of the orbit of the planet far enough away that when they dropped out of warp the ferengis sensors could not detect what class or type of ship it was , only that it was a Federation starship. Or they could have altered their warp signature to make them appear as a different and larger federation starship. :It has been a while since I saw the episode, but the summary (which agrees with my memory) explicitly says that they projected a false, dangerous-looking image onto their sensors. This also contradicts the reason given in the page history for removing this point, which seems to have been added by an editor who wasn't paying too close attention. - Caswin 23:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC) :The point has since been removed (again) for being a "nitpicking" detail. However -- to answer the stated MA:NIT guidelines -- there was no way for any member of the Enterprise to know the Ferengi's security codes, it is certainly important to the episode's plot, there was no judgment of the series or its crew, and the note was not in an improper place on the article. It is, as the article says, a contradiction of facts, to such a degree that it gets in the way of the story. If "it is quite appropriate to note those discrepancies," then how does this scene not qualify? - Caswin 20:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ::How do we know there was "no way" we knew the Ferengi codes? Starfleet Intelligence could have had that information, for all we know. Since we do not live in and are not experts in the 24th Century, we cannot categorically state there is "no way" for the Enterprise to have that information. That's why its a nit and cannot be in the article.--31dot 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) :::It may be helpful to note that the fact files state that the hataway "projected" a starship image to ferengi's sensors (or, at least, the italian version of the fact files...). Watching the episode, however, i don't see any evidence of it and i too suspect that they simply saw the hataway coming back.-Jackoverfull 13:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC) :If that's the case, shouldn't the summary be edited? - Caswin 19:37, November 22, 2009 (UTC) Lightspeed drive? I can see why the Ferengi would have referred to the ship's warp engine as a "lightspeed drive". The Hathaway did get away at warp 1, which is supposed to be the speed of light. Segin 21:26, January 8, 2010 (UTC) :OK. And....--31dot 21:28, January 8, 2010 (UTC) Removed possible nitpick (or not?) I removed it before I saw it was discussed previously. It was re-added. I changed *''Lt. Worf's knowledge of the Enterprise's security codes allowed him too fool it's sensors with an illusory Romulan Warbird. He used the same trick to fool the Ferengi ship, but without any knowledge feasible knowledge of that ship's security codes, no explanation is given as to how this was possible.'' to *''Worf's knowledge of the Enterprise's security codes allowed him to fool its sensors with an illusory Romulan Warbird. He used the same trick to fool the Ferengi ship but without knowing that ship's security codes.'' I have no comment/opinion, so anyone feel free to re-add/edit. Actually, I now see I left part of the alleged "nitpick" in; ie, the assertion that Worf didn't know the Feringi's codes. Maybe that should go, too (or the whole thing). In essence, it appears I only fixed the grammar and added a link. 18:06, January 9, 2011 (UTC) :We don't actually know that Worf didn't have the Ferengi security codes. We know that Starfleet has various technical information and codes of non-Federation powers gathered through intelligence and covert means. After all, in , the Enterprise is able to track Cardassian vessels and determine their type/mission by accessing transponder codes, something that is apparently classified as Gul Macet was both surprised and displeased at this Starfleet capability. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:14, January 9, 2011 (UTC) Agreed: I think it's a "nitpick" or at best, speculation. I'm going to remove it. (I wasn't paying careful attention – I would have just removed it but got distracted fixing the grammar, etc.) 19:32, January 9, 2011 (UTC) Removed quotes "You'll have warp drive, captain, though it may not be what you expected." "I think that deserves some kind of explanation." "We'll have warp 1 for about…" "…just under two seconds." "That's not long enough for an escape, but used as a surprise, it may give a strategic advantage." "Sir, ''all of this is theoretical." "''And if your theory fails to pay off?" "Have you ever driven a Grenthemen water hopper?" "Sure." "You ever pop the clutch?" "You're saying we're going to ''stall the Hathaway?" "''And the ''Enterprise will waltz right over and pulverize us." :- '''La Forge', Riker, and Crusher Removed per MA:QUOTE.--31dot 11:48, March 17, 2011 (UTC) Citation needed *''The game of Strategema bears a striking resemblance to the 1981 arcade game Qix. The aim of the game is much the same: capture a large part of a playing field to win the level; albeit with two players in the case of Strategema, the idea is to completely capture all of the playing field to win the entire game.'' Needs a citation this was intentional.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 10:33, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Incomplete Tag I think the incomplete tag can now be removed. Does anyone agree? Thebilldude (talk) 01:06, December 4, 2016 (UTC) What shuttle? The first scene in the episode shows a shuttlecraft with number "01" on the back, suggesting it is the Sakharov, but it's not the same type of shuttle. Just thought I would note this here. Thebilldude (talk) 23:42, January 25, 2017 (UTC) :It is the same type of shuttle, actually. They are both Type 7 shuttlecraft. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:40, January 26, 2017 (UTC) Yeah, I saw they are both referred to as the same type in the articles, which I'll take, though it's weird. It can't be the same physical shuttle, though, right? I quickly watched the relevant scenes of the other episodes, definitely consistently the other design. I suppose we can assume they scrapped it and re-built it newer. Thebilldude (talk) 00:58, February 2, 2017 (UTC) Reference to 9,000 years ago? What was the reference to "9,000 years ago", as listed in the category section? Jimw338 (talk) 15:25, September 7, 2017 (UTC) :You can find it if you click on the link in references. Goes right to it. --LauraCC (talk) 15:45, September 7, 2017 (UTC)